Background
This case involves an appeal filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in the High Court at Calcutta, challenging the rejection of its Patent Application No. 202237060506 by the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks. The application pertained to a communication method and device aimed at reducing power consumption in a terminal’s paging process. The rejection was based solely on the alleged invalidity of the General Power of Attorney (GPA) submitted by the appellant’s agent.
Grounds of Rejection
The impugned order, dated December 17, 2024, rejected the patent application due to non-compliance with formal statutory requirements under Sections 127 and 132 of the Patents Act, 1970, and Rules 126 and 135 of the Patent Rules, 2003. The Controller found the GPA defective, ignoring the technical merits of the invention. The objection to the GPA was raised late in the process, despite the original GPA being filed in another application and a copy submitted for this one, as permitted by Departmental Circular No. 12 of 2009.
Appellant’s Contentions
Huawei argued that the rejection was arbitrary and procedurally unfair. The company had addressed both technical and formal objections in written submissions, but the Controller focused solely on the GPA issue, which was not flagged in the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant contended that the reliance on statutory provisions was misplaced, as the Circular allowed copies of GPAs. Additionally, Huawei alleged bias by the Controller, citing a prior complaint by the Controller against GPA acceptance practices, suggesting a premeditated rejection.
Respondent’s Position
The respondent authorities conceded that the impugned order lacked sufficient grounds and was procedurally flawed. They acknowledged that the rejection was based on a purely technical issue and that established practices permitted the use of GPA copies.
Court’s Findings
The High Court, presided over by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, found the impugned order to be mechanically passed and overly pedantic. The court noted that the rejection violated principles of natural justice by not allowing Huawei to rectify the alleged GPA defect. The 40-page order was criticized for its exhaustive but irrelevant analysis of statutory provisions and comparisons with foreign patent offices, while ignoring the invention’s merits. The court highlighted that the Patents Act and Rules do not mandate refusal on GPA grounds alone and that the Circular supported the appellant’s practice. The court also referenced a Karnataka High Court decision, affirming that notarization or registration of a GPA is not compulsory.
Outcome
The court set aside the impugned order, deeming the sole ground for rejection untenable. The case was remanded to a different Hearing Officer for fresh consideration within four months, with all issues left open for adjudication on merits. The appeal was allowed to this extent.
